Complaining about the officiating in the first game.

[PetePierson]

Hardly a fair comparison? Gibbs had won 3 NFC titles and 2 Super Bowls at the same point in his career that Gruden is at now. It only took Gibbs 10 years to win 3 Super Bowls with three different teams. If Gruden is going to turn in a comparable career he has some seious catching up to do. Heck, Gruden's only Championship was won with another guy's team (Dungy's).

Gruden as a hall of famer? Lets just say I'll take a wait and see on that one.

Yeah, never heard the other guy's team argument before. Dungy will still find a way to lose the big game when it matters, trust me on that.

The NFL was a different beast pre salary cap and FA era. Sorry, I still do not feel it is a fair comparison.

[mcb4]

The correct call wasnt made because there was nothing to see except his elbow down at the 1 yard line. Thats Ok though, the Refs cant help you this time!!!! :point2sky

His elbow goes backwards at the end before it hits the ground actually. And it wasn't even close to the 1-yard line. It was 6 inches away at most. Probably more like 3-4.

[s0crates]

Not really a fair comparison considering the age difference. When it is all said and done, Gruden will be there as well.

Sorry, I still do not feel it is a fair comparison.

OK OK. You are right. Lets do a fair comparison, only viewing where the two were at the same point in their respective careers.

Jon Gruden's career record: 67-52 (1 Conference title and 1 Super Bowl win).

Gibbs career record through the same number of years: 85-33 (3 Conference titles and 2 Super Bowl wins).

This is not to take anything away from Gruden, who is a good coach. This is just to say that when measured against hall of famer Joe Gibbs, there really is no comparison.

[mcb4]

OK OK. You are right. Lets do a fair comparison, only viewing where the two were at the same poin in their respective careers.

Jon Gruden's career record: 67-52 (1 Conference title and 1 Super Bowl win).

Gibbs career record through the same number of years: 85-33 (3 Conference titles and 2 Super Bowl wins).

This is not to take anything away from Gruden, who is a good coach. This is just to say that when measured against hall of famer Joe Gibbs, there really is no comparison.

Well to be fair, he did say AGE difference. So Gruden has plenty of time to improve upon his record.

EDIT: He also said that Gibbs coached in a different era...

For the record, I think Gibbs has proven to be the better coach so far.

[s0crates]

I can't believe you guys actually think Gruden is in Gibbs league. I was trying to be reasonable. I conceded that the Betts return was questionable, and was willing to let bigones be bigones regarding any other calls in week 10. But if you guys are going to sit here and tell me Gruden's career in any way measures up to Gibbs, I'll have to admit there is no reasoning with you.

Regardless, here's to a good game with no injuries this weekend.

[PetePierson]

This is just to say that when measured against hall of famer Joe Gibbs, there really is no comparison.

No argument here. Gibbs has been successful in all aspects of his life regardless of the sport or business

[s0crates]

I can't believe you guys actually think Gruden is in Gibbs league. I was trying to be reasonable. I conceded that the Betts return was questionable, and was willing to let bigones be bigones regarding any other calls in week 10. But if you guys are going to sit here and tell me Gruden's career in any way measures up to Gibbs, I'll have to admit there is no reasoning with you.

Oops. Spoke too soon. I see you fellas have yielded slightly on this. Here's to a good game between two good teams.

[fpickering]

Look at that picture. You can't say with 100% certainty that the ball is not across the plane

You are correct. I can't say with 100% certainty that the ball did not cross the plane. Unfortunately for you, this is inconsequential.

What is important is that there is no visual evidence to support the assertion that the ball DID cross the plane. It is this simple fact that proves that the ref who signaled the 2pt conversion good made an error.

I am sorry but I do not understand why some people cannot grasp this simple concept.

The same concept can be applied to a runner tip toeing down the sideline. The ref should not blow the whistle unless there is definitive visual evidence that he stepped out.

[willyt]

Gruden is no slouch when it comes to the X’s and O’s either. And there is no way the Skins put up 42 on the Bucs’ D.

Hey..Dont sell Gruden short..He's one hell of a slouch!

[fpickering]

His elbow goes backwards at the end before it hits the ground actually. And it wasn't even close to the 1-yard line. It was 6 inches away at most. Probably more like 3-4.

You keep missing the point. The only thing you need to ask yourself is the following:

Was there definitive visual evidence that the football crossed the plane of the end zone?

The answer is no.

[willyt]

Maybe you'll understand it if we keep it real S-I-M-P-L-E If you can't SEE it..You can't Call it! Is that easier for you to understand. None of this matters though because all the Buckaroos will have to do is clean out their lockers on Sat night.

[mcb4]

I understand all of you perfectly fine. You say if the ref didn't see something, he can't call it. But I want to know exactly where in the NFL Case Book it says this, and what it says about it. You say it is common sense, here's something to think about...

A ballcarrier is running when and goes behind several defenders and the ref can't see him. He then breaks out and runs for a TD. Should the ref rule him down where he wasn't able to see him since there was no way he could know that he wasn't down. According to fpickering, no. "The ref should not blow the whistle unless there is definitive visual evidence that he stepped out (was down)." I completely agree with this.

Now, from THAT angle, which is the same angle the ref had, tell me that there is definitive evidence that Alstott's ELBOW was down. You say if he doesn't see it, he can't call it. So therefore, he can't rule him down. He runs in and sees Alstott in the endzone and correctly rules a touchdown, since that is the only thing he saw.

(For the record, I'm just defending the ref who made the call. I understand that most of you will never agree that the ball was across the plane. But I think it is unfair that you all are ripping on this guy.)

EDIT: And if the NFL Case Book refers specifically to this type of situation, then fine. But I'll believe it when i see it.

[O-11]

I understand all of you perfectly fine. You say if the ref didn't see something, he can't call it. But I want to know exactly where in the NFL Case Book it says this, and what it says about it. You say it is common sense, here's something to think about...

A ballcarrier is running when and goes behind several defenders and the ref can't see him. He then breaks out and runs for a TD. Should the ref rule him down where he wasn't able to see him since there was no way he could know that he wasn't down. According to fpickering, no. "The ref should not blow the whistle unless there is definitive visual evidence that he stepped out (was down)." I completely agree with this.

Now, from THAT angle, which is the same angle the ref had, tell me that there is definitive evidence that Alstott's ELBOW was down. You say if he doesn't see it, he can't call it. So therefore, he can't rule him down. He runs in and sees Alstott in the endzone and correctly rules a touchdown, since that is the only thing he saw.

(For the record, I'm just defending the ref who made the call. I understand that most of you will never agree that the ball was across the plane. But I think it is unfair that you all are ripping on this guy.)

EDIT: And if the NFL Case Book refers specifically to this type of situation, then fine. But I'll believe it when i see it.

When this call was made I was as much of a critic as anyone, and still am for that matter. You seem like a smart enough person, however, not to detract from your intelligence, but there are three glaring flaws in this argument. The first is that you want this "Case Book". I for one don't have a "Case Book", so I'm no help for you there. However, I firmly believe that if I did and could show you proof that it still wouldn't be enough for you. I don't know, just call me cynical. You reject the idea of common sense because Art mentioned the words "Case Book" and now you're hung up on that. However, in the above quote you give an illustration that you answer for yourself. Yes, you are right, the ref shouldn't blow the whistle for the runner to be down, correct. This leads to the second...

The second flaw is that while you give the right answer for the ref not blowing the whistle, you assume that the ref allows the runner to score on the play as Alstott was presumed to have done. This is incorrect. What Art was saying (as the rest of us) is that NO call should be made. Absolutely, positively no call. The ref should neither call the runner down, NOR should he signal touchdown. This is what his crew is for. For above illustration, that ref should not signal touchdown nor should he blow the whistle. The officiating crew should gather together to discuss if anyone else had a better view of it and if that fails you go to replay and allow replay to work. If all of these options still do not yield an answer, then, the refs should use their best judgment from that point forward. The problem with the Alstott play was that the call was made first. This ref put the cart before the horse on nothing more than an ASSUMPTION. He should have allowed his resources to help him first. This leads to the third flaw...

One moment you say that Alstott had been pushed back and in this post you say that "He runs in and sees Alstott in the end zone". Which is it? It can't be both. Either the ref watched the Skins push Alstott back or either he looks down and sees him in the end zone. Does Alstott live on some plain of existence that has yet to be discovered by mortal man? Even in the photograph that you provided you stated that no one could tell for sure. Now you're saying that he was in the end zone, hence the correct call was made. Pick one and stick with it.

But the major flaw is the one previously mentioned, that the ref should make NO call at all until he can best evaluate the situation and make a call after exhausting his available resources beforehand. This he did not do. If you need a "Case Book" for that then this talk ends here and we must agree to disagree.

[TheBig_E]

The call I'm upset about is the so-called "force out" of Galloway early in the 1st Quarter of that game. That was truly a BS call that led to TB's first TD. If that call wasn't made the outcome would have been MUCH different.

[Martini]

HTTR

Why are you so scared?????

Because you know the truth, the Bucettes lost the first the game and will lose this one.

:bucsuck:

[skinsfan2021]

:applause: :logo: :applause:

Well, hopefully the refs won't screw us over on some BS call.

Anyways why are we even having this conversation?

First of all, how will the Bucs D hold up against our 28 PPG over the last five games.

2) Clinton Portis is on fire

3) How will Chris Simms ever hold up to our Defense.

Phillip Daniels will be all over his A##(Pardon the French) :laugh:

All in all we should focus on givin 1000% against the Bucs. :point2sky

RIP: Southeast Jerome

NEXT STOP: SEATTLE

[Art]

So you have the book, can you possibly quote what you're referring to for me?

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself? You said the ref "can't whistle a play dead until he clearly sees the body down." He couldn't see Alstott's elbow. So didn't he do the proper thing in running toward the pile and seeing if the ball had crossed the line?

EDIT: Also, how did you get this book?

Sorry I hadn't seen this until now.

There's absolutely nothing contradictory in the play at all. The official must SEE the call before making it. You ought not need the league's casebook quoted to you to appreciate the fundamental truth in that. It ought to simply be true in your knowledge as one of those, "Yeah, obvious," kind of things.

There are many ways an official can SEE a play dead. Momentum stopped, body down, out of bounds, whatever (and, in fact, I mentioned this in my post, so any contradiction would be on your part for not actually quoting what I said, but stopping when you stopped wanting to read more words). He couldn't see the ball. He could see Alstott's body position making it an impossibility by the laws of nature for the ball to be in, but, he didn't go with what he saw. He walked in, allowed Alstott to wiggle forward after the play was dead and then made the signal.

That, by rule, is a bad call.